Durham v. Richland Co. Sheriffs Dept et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 76 motion for the appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 6/8/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Keylan Durham,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Jerry B. Adger, Head Probation Officer; Lisa )
Baker, Probation Officer,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:15-342-TLW-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff Keylan Durham, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s
motion in which he requests the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 76.)
There is no right to appointed counsel in § 1983 cases. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th
Cir. 1975). The court may use its discretion to request counsel to represent an indigent in a civil
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490
U.S. 296 (1989). However, such discretion “should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Cook
v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Whether exceptional circumstances are present
depends on the type and complexity of the case, and the pro se litigant’s ability to prosecute it.
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard, 490 U.S.
296.
Upon review of the file, the court has determined that there are no exceptional or unusual
circumstances presented at this time, nor would the plaintiff be denied due process if the court denied

Page 1 of 2

plaintiff’s request for counsel. Id. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion requesting counsel under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
June 8, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2